Re: Policy as Asset and Relationship

On 27 Apr 2012, at 20:30, Michael Steidl (IPTC) wrote:

> My comments:
> -          In the context of o:duty above the <asset> refers to an entity which is definitely *not* “content” as specified in the Core Model.

Our model was to treat all Assets the same. You are correct that in the Model we say:

"The Asset entity is aimed at identifying the content that is the subject of an ODRL policy, e.g. a media file or ebook. "

But then we also add:

"Furthermore, it can be used to represent other Asset entities that are needed to undertake the Policy expression, such as with the Duty entity"

> -          And what about @relationship: the definition of “target” is ambiguous in this use case. What exactly is the asset upon which the action NextPolicy” is performed: the “wallpaper:2321” or the “policy:7777”.

It is very clear - the "target" asset for the Duty is policy:7777

And policy:7777 says that you can display wallpaper:2321

> Possible solution: add a third term to the @relation vocabulary like “targetPolicy” and define if a reference asset is a policy it has to be used.

Hmmm…I am not convinced ;-)
Then we would need "targetPay" ??

> -          Only a minor consideration on @relation
> - the specs say (Core Model and XML Encoding) that it is REQUIRED
> - the specs say it has a default value of “target”.
> - hm, in which case would this default value apply as the attribute is mandatory? Usually default values of an XML node apply if this node does not exist.

Correct - normally it would be a required attribute in the Asset element, but since we added support for id/idrefs on elements, we had to relax that from the XML Schema, but the rule still applies.

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206